Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:06 | #

Apart from being an extremely tedious read, the Macdonald article demonstrates the heavy Jewish influence in early Bolshevism (reversed largely by Stalin) but utterly fails to make the case for his link to “hostile” Jewish influence in Britain and the United States. 

There have been Communist countries—notably China, Korea and much of eastern Europe—entirely without Jewish influence.

There has been plenty of Jewish intellectual support for the Right—notably Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand.

There have been notable Jewish advances in civilisation—for example the London merchant banks, which were destroyed by a largely gentile trader/bureaucrat culture of slow-thinking but hyper-aggressive behemoths with low erthical standrads. The Jewish merchant banks were FAR more ethical than their gentile successors.

In other words, it’s codswallop.  What’s more it’s thoroughly unpleasant codswallop that I’m coming to find deeply offensive, particularly as MR seems to want to wallow in it.

FAR better Geoff’s nazi kitsch, which did indeed have considerable historic and aesthetic interest.

But better still the real hero of 20th Century Germany, yet to receive his first mention on MR, Konrad Adenauer, the man who survived Nazism, remained a Conservative and improved living standards for his people more than any other German leader in history. 

As Geoff used to sneer, I value respectability more than most on this site anyway—one reason why I don’t share most of its inhabitants’ habit of anonymous posting.  One particular “respectable” mindset that I have NO intention to change is distaste for anti-Semtism.  They are among the world’s most intelligent and creative people.

Posted by Phil on Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:20 | #

Guessedworker,

The article is simply superb.

Martin,

At your age, it would be highly unusual for you to change your opinion no matter what evidence you see.

To say that Jews have had no destructive effect in America is, well…......what can I say? Laughable.

Anyway, labels are meaningless. If the lack of “respectability” frightens you that much, you may consider where this leads. In Nazi Germany, Nazi opinions were respectable, even fashionable and in the Soviet Union, only Communist opinions were “respectable”. “Racism” as we understand it today was perfectly “respectable” in the 19th century (and much of the 20th) in America and Britain but it is the greatest sin on earth now.

If “Respectability” is the sole measure of which ideas are worthy and which aren’t, Galileo should never have questioned the Church.

I think, Martin, if you were a member of the clergy in the 15th century, you would not have taken too kindly to Gelileo (and may have had him executed). And perhaps Socrates may have met the same fate.

I am sorry but I will not let the mentality of the herd decide what I should think and what I shouldn’t think.

I am a free man. And the first step to being a free man is possessing a free mind.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:47 | #

Phil, I would never dream of suggesting that you allow the herd to determine your opinions. but well established facts, as I outlined in my entry above, should make you think twice about them. There may be more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy; for one thing Galileo was 17th century not 15th, and his scientific beliefs were well accepted in the Protestant culture from which I spring. Philosophically I’m an Enlightenment Rationalist; that philosophy did not include anti-Semitism.

Of course there has been damage done to the United States by Jews, but as the example of Friedman and Rand demonstrate, there has also been much good done by them. They have a huge cultural influence, much of it benign.

I agree entirely with MR’s rejection of political correctness, its desire to preserve and protect Anglo/Euopean people and culture, its belief that race replacment is a danger and its belief that there are large genetic differences between races, However, Jews are at the TOP of the genetic IQ distribution, not the bottom and as such should be admired not hated.

Posted by Matra on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:01 | #

Martin - “Of course there has been damage done to the United States by Jews, but as the example of Friedman and Rand demonstrate, there has also been much good done by them.

That Friedman and Rand influenced the US right is beyond doubt. But I don’t see why any American wishing to preserve the ethnic core of their nation should be all that thankful for their contributions. There are more important things than individualism and free market capitalism.

Posted by TRI on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:05 | #

Thanks for the excellent article, Geoff!

Martin, it’s very easy for you to use your real name when you are recorded indelibly in support of a position recorded that doesn’t cost you anything. To take the other stance, you risk losing/limiting your career and both private and public ostracization.

I’m not sure how well they were respected at the time, but many of America’s founding fathers used pen names to influence the public when it suited them. If they weren’t respected then, they are certainly respected now.

As to Jewish influence in the Western world, you have got to be kidding. Hollywood, of which is 60% Jewish according to Ben Stein (and higher in the positions of control), has an immense influence on what people think. And that influence is overwhelmingly anti-European. AIPAC and other Jewish front groups jerk our politicians around like puppets on a string.

At the head of every acceptable pro-Jewish ideology there is a Jew. Thus it is no surprise that you mention Ayn Rand. We are allowed a “choice” of any number of competing ideologies except our own ethnic interest. And conveniently, Jews dictate what goes on in all of these.

Jewish merchant bankers more ethical????  Between Jacob Schiff financing the murderous Bolsheviks and Rothschilds war profiteering/market manipulation/ outright theft, I’m not sure how you would make that case.

And as to the influence of China, it has come to be a super power relatively recently. If we are talking about the 20th century, if you cover Europe and the USA, you have most of it covered.

Posted by Matra on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:06 | #

I suppose Friedman’s better than most economists on immigration:

http://vdare.com/misc/archive00/friedman.htm

Posted by Phil on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:08 | #

for one thing Galileo was 17th century not 15th

Indeed. I stand corrected.

Posted by Pericles on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:17 | #

Phil Peterson,

There is no freedom without responsibility. There are one billion Moslems worldwide. There are only fourteen million Jews worldwide. The Moslems in France are demonstrating what they are and what they want to do to Western culture and Western values. What don’t you get? The Jews are not our enemies.

You remind me of the British heavy guns in Singapore in 1941 facing out to sea. They were bloody useless, because the Japanese overran the British forces from behind. Which way are you pointed?

One thing you should know about me. I am very prejudiced, as all my friends would acknowlege. I am extremely prejudiced against people with low IQ, thus I am violently opposed to your level of crass stupidity and ignorance. You should hope I never meet you because on occasions, I am not a nice man. See here: http://www.sdtactics.com.au/html/systems/krav_maga.html

and here:

Pericles

Posted by Amman on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:40 | #

Uh…Pericles, I’d like to state that I have all the admiration in the world for folks who’ve served in combat—God knows I’d get blown away after 30 seconds in a war zone. In all fairness, though, judging by that image, I’d wager there are worthier targets for your wrath than some guy blogging on the Internet—I’m pretty sure you didn’t have to worry ‘bout returning fire in that pic.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:59 | #

There has been plenty of Jewish intellectual support for the Right—notably Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand.

Yeah, Rosenbaum, what a helper of our people, demonizing anything but radical individualism in whites while tacitly approving it in jews…

Three cheers for miss Rosenbaum.  She sure was a maverick.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:02 | #

They have a huge cultural influence, much of it benign.

Could you define “much”?  I’m honestly very curious as to the benign cultural influences of jews.  I’m especially interested in jewish movements that qualify (by “jewish movements” I mean what KMac means by “jewish movements”).

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:07 | #

Jews are at the TOP of the genetic IQ distribution, not the bottom and as such should be admired not hated.

I’m not a cognitive elitist and so don’t put intelligent peoples on a pedestal.  I’m a race-realist and an IQ-realist, so I factor IQ and race into considerations about humanity.

Believe it or not I do admire jewry, at the same time I harbor animus towards them.  The two aren’t mutually exclusive after all.  I can admire a friend and still drop him on his neck when I catch him at 2am, one foot through my bedroom window.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:09 | #

I started a thread at Stormfront called “the friendly jews list.”  MR readers and writers are invited and welcome to contribute to it.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:15 | #

Martin, it’s very easy for you to use your real name when you are recorded indelibly in support of a position recorded that doesn’t cost you anything. To take the other stance, you risk losing/limiting your career and both private and public ostracization.

Yeah, statements like the one you refer to make me wonder about just how on the ball Martin can really be.  It just screams “clueless!”

Posted by Amman on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:28 | #

In all fairness, I don’t think Martin’s as cowardly as y’all make him out to be. Remember how hard the Establishment comes down on anybody who even dares to acknowledge the existence of intelligence (in terms of IQ), much less average racial differences in IQ! If what happened to Herrnstein and Murray (and Rushton and Jensen, for that matter) is any indication, ol’ Martin might be risking more than just a little by posting here…

Not to say that I agree with everything he says, of course. Just sayin’ that his position just may cost him something if the wrong people go sniffing around.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:32 | #

“There has been plenty of Jewish intellectual support for the Right—notably Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand.”  (—Martin)

There are plenty of anti-Communist Jews but no anti-race-replacement ones—I’m talking about the leadership of Jewish organizations and the public Jews across the entire political spectrum, right, left, and center:  all want race-replacement and not only want it but want it with an intensity, an almost emotional fervor, which is surprising to witness.

”[Jews] are among the world’s most intelligent and creative people.” (—Martin)

I wonder what Martin’s come-back line would be if Prof. MacDonald told him he agreed (as no doubt he does)? 

I see what Martin is saying and I and probably everyone here would agree with all of it.  But Martin is replying to MacDonald with non sequiturs.  Lots of Jews have high business ethics, lots don’t (exactly like any other group); lots wouldn’t pull some of the anti-Euro-Christian stunts we read about in that MacDonald piece, lots would and apparently did; and so on.  As proof that none did/would pull some of those anti-Euro-Christian stunts, Martin merely sort of cites the ones who didn’t/wouldn’t and on that flimsy basis condemns MacDonald very vigorously (don’t forget, incidentally, MacDonald is here largely summarizing Slezkine, not advancing his own ideas in every instance).

Martin, there is unfortunately a “Jewish Question,” a notion and a term which needn’t be tinged with deep dark menace or foreboding any more than the notion that for Poles there’s a German question and for Germans a Polish one, for Unionist Ulstermen a Catholic question and for Northern-Irish Catholics a Prod one, for English Canadians a French-Canadian question and for French Canadians an English-Canadian one, for Greek Cypriots a Turkish-Cypriot question and for Turkish Cypriots a Greek-Cypriot one, for Jewish Israelis a Palestinian question and for Palestinians a Jewish Israeli one, or for (Diaspora) Jews a (Euro) Christian question (just as, to come back to where I started, for [Euro] Christians a [Diaspora] Jewish one).  There’s nothing evil, unmentionable, or indecent about it—these all refer to considerations concerning ethnic groups’ acting in their own ethnic interests and against the ethnic interests of other groups who in ways are their rivals, that’s all. 

I only began to see clearly that there was indeed a “JQ” around a year-and-a-half ago—began to see, that is, that the main movers & shakers of the Jews as a group consistently tend in certain crucial ways (think Abe Foxman) to oppose Euro Christian interests in furtherance of what they see as their own.  That leads to clashes of interest, including clashes on subjects a portion of individuals on both sides, Jews and Euro Christians, consider non-negotiable such as excessive, race-changing incompatible immigration which Jews tend to want very badly as a means of diluting Euro-Christian presence in society and Euro Christians tend to dislike very intensely for obvious reasons including that it actually threatens their demise which Jewish leaders like Foxman not only don’t seem concerned about but seem positively to hope for. 

That there’s a JQ in the above sense is, I now see, a fact.  It’s no use calling discussion of it anti-Semitism, or implying that it’s anti-Semitism.  It isn’t.  Jews as a group don’t behave politically the way Amishmen as a group or Hasidic Jews as a group behave:  shy and retiring and minding their own business, keeping strictly out of the way and out of political movements, fights, and controversies.  If they did no one would take notice of them, any more than notice is taken of the Amish or the Brooklyn Lubavitcher Hasids:  they’d be off the radar screen.  On the contrary, Jews get right into the thick of the most controversial political, social, and cultural fights and, in so doing, seem mostly to tilt 1) left, and 2) anti-white-Christian, and because for various reasons they’re effective at advancing their interests, end up generating considerable hostility toward themselves.

The individual rank-and-file Jews among Martin’s friends and squash partners may not give this much thought and therefore show bewilderment or anger at its being broached but Jewish leaders, college professoriate, and public personages follow a Jewish line on what I’m most interested in, race-replacement, with very scant exceptions, a line which clashes absolutely with Euro-Christian interests though Martin may not perceive any such clash.

“Philosophically I’m an Enlightenment Rationalist; that philosophy did not include anti-Semitism.”  (—Martin)

No one would want it to.  But did it include race?  If not, it needed mending—a little “updating,” let’s say ...

Posted by stari_momak on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:37 | #

Wow, Geoff leaves and Pericles takes up the ‘arms and entertainment’ slack immediately. Just goes to show, nature abhors a vacuum.

But now to Martin. Well, Milton Friedmam is a libertarian, and I guess kind of okay. Rand, seems to have been a nut—at least her followers are. Another example of a Jewish guru (oxymoron) spinning a psuedo-science and catching young, smart gentiles in their web? Yeah, probably. Martin, you must read Culture of Critique to get the whole story—KMacD deals with the whole enchilada , so to speak, in that volume. (It occurs to me that Martin’s hostility to MacDonald may be that ancient one that all Saxons,including GW alas, share the hatred of the Celt, ) . Anyhoo, I take the position of James Baker (allegedly), blank the Jews, they don’t vote for us. A healthy, normal tribal instinct when confronted by tribalism—but just a tad gauche for Martin. Won’t get invited to Georgetown dinner parties saying things like that, what? 

Never a truer thing was said, i.e. Baker’s (alleged) outburst. It’s really amazing to see the Repubs bending over forward for a constituency that voted 77-23 against them in the last election. It was Machiavelli, I think, who said you should aid your friends and punish your enemies. The repubs have reversed that order.

Posted by Amman on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:51 | #

anti-race-replacement ones—

I think a Jew by the name of Michael Levin or something wrote some books detailing the problematic lower IQs of blacks, etc. In fact, I think Amren had one of his books in their store! Add that to Jared Taylor’s Jewish wife, and you have two anti-race replacement Jews, at least

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:07 | #

Martin Hutchinson’s comments regarding London’s merchant banks bring to mind the famous Guinness scandal in which every single guilty participant including, but not limited to, Ernest Saunders, Anthony Parnes, Jack Lyons and Gerald Ronson just happened to be Jewish. Nothing like the US of course where again co-incidence occurred in the affairs of Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky, Jack Grubman, Victor Posner,Meshusalem Riklis et al, not to mention the implosion of the then independent and Jewish-run Salomon Bros which had to be rescued by a ‘slow-thinking’ Mid-Western Gentile, Warren Buffett.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:10 | #

Prof. Levin’s book is called “Why Race Matters,” if memory serves.  But is he against race-replacement?  The one doesn’t necessarily follow from the other, you know.  If he is, he’s an extreme rarity—a Jewish college professor and (somewhat) public intellectual who’s against race-replacement of Euro Christians.  You can probably without exaggeration count them on the fingers of one hand.  Essentially all Jews by the way who (such as Prof. Steven Steinlight) have turned into immigration restrictionists from their previous pro-open-borders stance, ferociously oppose any restriction on open immigration of non-Moslem non-whites such as Mexicans, Orientals, Nigerians, Hindus, and so on.  They want restriction solely of Moslems.  Everyone else must be allowed to come, according the them.  Needless to point out, that’s deliberate advocacy of Euro Christian genocide.  These same individuals, almost universally Zionist, certainly would never advocate open borders for Israel.

Posted by Amon on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:10 | #

Amman, Arthur Jensen is also part Jewish. And, of the 16 archived VDare writers, three (almost 20%) are Jewish.  (Marcus Epstein = German/Russian Jew; Dave Gorak = Czech Jew; Edwin Rubenstein = Jew.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:15 | #

For the record, I think I once saw Marcus Epstein say in a thread somewhere that he was Jewish, and racially half-European-Jew, half-Korean.

Posted by Amon on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:21 | #

three…

half-European-Jew, half-Korean.

*two and one-half

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:29 | #

Not true that every participant in Guinness was Jewish; the Morgan Grenfell “public school bully boys” weren’t, and Morgan Grenfell itself was founded by George Peabody and Junius Morgan, neither of them Jewish.

Buffett notably failed to rescue Salomon; he was there purely as a PR gesture. It was finally bailed out by the Jewish Sandy Weill.

Schiff’s Kuhn Loeb was not a London merchant bank; with the exception of Morgan, the New Yorkers were all regarded as crooks in the good old days.

Enlightenment rationalism certainly included race; it was I guess close to MR in its view of Africans.

Being as Phil remarked geriatric, I haven’t played squash for 38 years (I played it then because the alternative was rugby.) I spent today playing golf, however, very enjoyable indeed in the Virginia November.

Let me emphasise that if you guys wish to be anti-Semitic I shan’t hate you for it; I regard it as eccentric, irrational and mildly unpleasant, no more.  One of my closer friends (the cockney one) has the dreadful and persistent habit of voting Liberal Democrat, much more intellectually indefensible than anti-Semitism. However, he isn’t obsessive about it, and if he were to start dragging me to LibDem meetings our friendhip would be severely strained. The same applies here.

Intelligence is another thing, like culture, that I regard as more important than race.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:32 | #

Gorak is Jewish?  How do you know that?

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:32 | #

Oops, I seem to have done Mr Riklis the discourtesy of mis-spelling his ‘Christian’name. My inclusion of a truncated form of Jerusalem therein must surely constitute a Freudian slip.Arent the Jews so wonderfully proficient in the matter of inventing pseudo-science?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:35 | #

“if you guys wish to be anti-Semitic”  (—Martin)

I can’t let that pass, Martin.  I’m not anti-Semitic.  (Now insist I am all you want—I’ve put my denial on record.)

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:38 | #

The non-Jewish cast members of the Guinness farce were, of course, lied to and kept in the dark by the real culprits. Warren Buffett as PR shill? Ho hum.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:48 | #

Fred, I’m sorry, your post was on a notably higher intellectual level than any of the others here. Since I don’t regard anti-Semitism as very significant (other than as an unnecessary marginalising factor) I don’t draw fine distinctions between genuinely anti-Semitic observations and those merely critical of certain aspects of Jewish thought and activity.  As I said above, I regard the whole subject as an eccentricity, mild or extreme depending on the extent it becomes an obsession. I am however also anti-anti-Semitic, in the sense that if purely an intellctual argument it’s harmless.

Incidentally, Phil, to return to your crack about my being too old to absorb new ideas, anti-Semitism has about 7-8 pages to itself in my 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica.  Its first major political exponent was the very unpleasant demagogic socialist Mayor of Vienna, Karl Lueger, who was a kind of Viennese Hugo Chavez, and bears much of the responsibility for the breakup of the wonderful Austria-Hungary.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 03:10 | #

Martin thanks for your explanation, but I know you’re not mean and I didn’t take your comment as hostile—my little self-defense there—getting my denial “on the record”—was good-natured in spirit though my wording didn’t show it (must remember to include those smiley faces more often ...)

Incidentally, on the MacDonald article, bear in mind the version linked in the log entry is described as an excerpt from a longer OQ original (which I for one haven’t hunted up yet to read).  So to be fair to KMac it seems possible, at least, that the arguments as laid out in the unabridged original may come nearer meeting with your approval.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 03:16 | #

Yes, but I bet the prose doesn’t! (speaking as a professional editor for the last 5 years) It’s the most god-awful bureaucrat committee-speak; he must have interned in the Us DEfense Department.

Posted by luke the drifter on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 03:35 | #

I for one deeply apologize to Mr. Hutchinson for the fact that his delicate sensibilities have been offended by Macdonald’s article. 

I also like to thank Hutchison for informing me that Macdonald’s article is an “extremely tedious read.”  Were it not for this succinct and objective characterization of the article, I might of have actually read it for myself.  As it is, I’ll just rely upon Hutchinson’s graceful, shallow, and irrelevant “refutation”. 

Hutchinson claims that McD “utterly fails to make the case for his link to “hostile” Jewish influence in Britain and the United States.” 

This can only be true for those who, like Hutchinson, willfully ignore its obvious implications out of fear of moving beyond the bounds of general respectability. 

There have been notable Jewish advances in civilisation 

I don’t think anyone is claiming that Jews have contributed nothing to western civilization.  You, on the other hand, appear to insist that jews are responsible for none of the ills of western civilization- a contention that is far more implausible than the straw-man you denounce. 

What’s more it’s thoroughly unpleasant codswallop that I’m coming to find deeply offensive 

Sounds more like a diary entry than an argument.  Frankly, I’m glad you’re offended.  Maybe you’ll be shaken out of your stupor.

I value respectability more than most on this site anyway

I guess you win.  Logic can never defeat respectability, can it? 

Intelligence is another thing, like culture, that I regard as more important than race.

If everyone felt the same, and were guided in their actions by that belief, perhaps we wouldn’t have a problem.  But you are in a small minority, and your competitors do not share your perspective.

Posted by JB on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 05:08 | #

Fred:
“Incidentally, on the MacDonald article, bear in mind the version linked in the log entry is described as an excerpt from a longer OQ original (which I for one haven’t hunted up yet to read).”

this looks like the complete text (PDF):

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol5no3/53-km-slezkine.pdf

VDARE should have posted a link to it

Posted by JB on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 05:20 | #

Martin Hutchinson:
“They are among the world’s most intelligent and creative people.”

and they use their talents to do what ? to advance their interests and stifle ours.

Martin Hutchinson:
“I’m an Enlightenment Rationalist; that philosophy did not include anti-Semitism.”

Voltaire would disagree. Oh well I guess he wasn’t much of an Enlightenment Rationalist after all. He was just another typical jew hating loser like Cicero, Seneca, Tacitus, HL Mencken, Henry Ford, TS Eliot, Shakespeare, Immanuel Kant, Schopenhauer, H.G. Wells, ...

The universality of antisemitism

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/jtr_01.htm

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 05:52 | #

In other words, it’s codswallop.

Before you render judgment, you must hear the evidence and argument.  Your opinion is, in the most literal sense, a prejudice.

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 06:29 | #

I’m an Enlightenment Rationalist; that philosophy did not include anti-Semitism.

It has been argued that it *was* anti-Semitism, or more strictly speaking anti-Judaism.  Whereas Nazism was essentially Judaism applied in favor of a different people, Enlightenment ideals were the opposite of those of Judaism.

...as Enlightenment thought became increasingly hostile to religion, it focused on Judaism as the source of Christendom. To attack Christianity at its roots, thinkers such as John Toland and Voltaire turned their critical ire on its Jewish foundations.

For the champions of the new Empire of Reason, Judaism came to represent everything they were against.

To them, Judaism embodied tribalism, scripturalism, legalism, and irrational adherence to tradition. Where the Enlightenment upheld reason, Judaism wallowed in myth. The Enlightenment stood for the universal, Judaism for the particular. Enlightenment meant cosmopolitanism, Judaism insularity. The Enlightenment promised progress, Judaism threatened atavism. In short, the Enlightenment came to define itself, Mr. Sutcliffe argues, as the antithesis of all things Jewish.

http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i25/25a01601.htm

Posted by john fitzgerald on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 06:30 | #

White baiting by jews is a problem. There is no comparisson between anti-semitism and white baiting, the latter is well funded and organised.

It would be nice to see some kind of balance brought to the situation. A start would be for the constant denigration on groups representing whites to cease.

Posted by luke the drifter on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 06:46 | #

“Pericles” writes: One thing you should know about me. I am very prejudiced… I am extremely prejudiced against people with low IQ, thus I am violently opposed to your level of crass stupidity and ignorance.

Am I right in thinking that “Pericles” is a self-proclaimed genius?  And that he wants us to realize how profoundly lucky we are that he takes the time to share his wisdom with us? 

I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he isn’t a hubristic fantasist. 

But in my experience, those who make idle threats of physical violence and unsupported claims of mental superiority are, in real life, cowardly and stupid.

Pericles wrote: “You should hope I never meet you because on occasions, I am not a nice man.”  See here: http://www.sdtactics.com.au/html/systems/krav_maga.html

Oooooh, now I’m REALLY scared.  In the future, I’ll do my best to avoid making you angry, and if I do, I’ll quickly make a donation to “Wings of Angels”.  http://www.ifcj.org/site/PageServer?pagename=programs_wings&s_src=homewoe&s_track=homewoe  I’d like to help send you home.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 07:09 | #

I got that reaction from Pericles the other week in the middle of an exchange about Christianity—something about how I’d better hope we didn’t meet in person because of what he’d do to me, and how accomplished a martial artist he was or something.  I didn’t know how to take it then, but seeing him do it tonight to Phil I think he must be trying to make a joke.  If not, he must be el mucho weirdo or something.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 07:10 | #

Sorry, that last post wasn’t meant to be in italics.

Posted by Luke the Drifter on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 07:53 | #

I suppose it could be intended as a joke, but if Pericles is so smart, wouldn’t he set it up better? 

If we were really looking for excuses, I suppose its possible that he is a poser trying to give jews a bad name by acting like an archetypal jew. 

But somehow I don’t think we need to look so deep in order to understand his true intent. 

I too messed up with the italics in my last post above.

Posted by Andrew on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 08:00 | #

Hmmm Nor Jew or Ayrian, Just a strait jacket.
Dont worry Fred, Bruce Lee has been cloned a few times and on his way.A couple of defects but still opperational ! :lol
I don’t think Pericles means any halm, just problems expressing him self some times.A need to have upset some one. JJR might offer some advice?

Posted by Andrew on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 08:21 | #

We have all gone Italic, at least not Arabic yet.
Banking was invented by our late and great Knights Templar , all those years ago, until the greedy French burnt them, The Knights that is , but still did not find the loot, at least they found Islam. And still burning.

Posted by Phil on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 08:38 | #

I got that reaction from Pericles the other week in the middle of an exchange about Christianity—something about how I’d better hope we didn’t meet in person because of what he’d do to me, and how accomplished a martial artist he was or something.  I didn’t know how to take it then, but seeing him do it tonight to Phil I think he must be trying to make a joke.  If not, he must be el mucho weirdo or something.

Fred,

The internet is littered with twits and half-wits. I don’t bother responding to them.

Posted by Phil on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 08:42 | #

Oooooh, now I’m REALLY scared.  In the future, I’ll do my best to avoid making you angry, and if I do, I’ll quickly make a donation to “Wings of Angels”.  http://www.ifcj.org/site/PageServer?pagename=programs_wings&s_src=homewoe&s_track=homewoe I’d like to help send you home.

LOL!

Posted by Amman on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 08:57 | #

Probably stirring the pot, but here’s the Wikipedia article on Holocaust revisionism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_revisionism_examined

:(? or ?

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 10:34 | #

A few things that make it obvious to me the JQ is not just relevant but urgent:

1) Any ethnic group that has as much prominence as Jews is bound to face an ethical conflict of ethnic interest.  This means from a purely ethical standpoint there is urgency to the scrutiny of Jewish behavior.

2) The continual reference to the Nazis as the embodiment of evil due, primarily, to the Holocaust, has warped the moral structure of all Euro-derived societies to the point that there really is what might be called “Holocaustianity” as a new Western theocracy.  This is a denial of enlightenment values and is attributable to Jewish influence.

3) Urbanization has pushed most of the population into social patterns to which they are far less adapted than Jews.

4) The manipulation of the US into a war in Iraq is obviously largely due to Jewish influence, and it has put the entire planet at risk due to potential geopolitical instability in an era of weapos of mass destruction.

In short, while some may consider the JQ “deeply offensive codswallop” I consider it to be of the utmost urgency.

Posted by WJG on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:50 | #

This is not only an important question that WN (especially) must effectively deal with but arguably the most important question.  Professor MacDonald’s review of that book is very well written and a must read.  If Mr. Hutchinson thinks that was a tedious read he ought to try Culture of Critique, which though it is invaluable in understanding the JQ, is very difficult reading due to being excessively scholarly.

Dealing with the ‘Enemy Within’ is probably every nation’s biggest challenge and failure to do so is maybe the greatest cause of national extinction.  That Jews are at the center of most of our current hurdles should be apparent to any clear thinking WN.  They are neither a Master Race nor subhuman but a very well-motivated and self-interested group.  We need to face them as equals not as browbeaten slaves or fawning sycophants.

I think history shows that Jews are incompatible with a non-imperial, productive and successful White Nations.  Even where they ‘help’ White nations it is with things that, in turn, make those White nations hated.  Creation of the A-Bomb, fiat currency/debt/usury, human trafficking, and litigiousness are some of the ways Jewish creativity has ‘assisted’ us.  This is in addition to their role in propagating constructions that are socially poisonous such as radical feminism, degrading entertainment, perversion of sexuality and gender, etc.

In America, many free thinking conservatives lay the foundations of our demise at the feet of Abraham Lincoln, our first (though not last) tyrannical and imperial president.  This may be true but when the massive influx of Jewry occurred in the 40 years from 1880 to 1920 Lincoln’s seed was harvested into a bumper crop that is now almost uncontainable.

They arrived and turned America into something indistinguishable from its foundations in just a few generations.  It would be an impressive case study if we weren’t its victims.  We were unprepared for this invasion and still don’t know what hit us.  Hopefully this will change.

There may not be a simple answer to the JQ but refusing to even ask it is even worse than not seeing that there is an elephant in the room.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:55 | #

Macdonald isn’t excessively scholarly, he’s illiterate. As I said on the other thread, more of this kind of thing “Jews are incompatible with a non-imperial, productive and successful White Nation” is simply attracting low-life.  GW should have had more sense than post this thread, immediately after the Hitler photos hoo-hah (on which, to be fair, I had considerable sympathy with Geoff, since they were merely harmless kitsch to any non-fruitcake.)

Posted by Kubilai on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:14 | #

Way to go out on a limb there, Martin.  So what shall we talk about?  Oh yes, how’s that intelligent African professor friend of yours doing?

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:21 | #

Out on a limb is where I’m most comfortable.  The advantage of MR is it allows me to try out limbs on a whole different side of the tree

Posted by WJG on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:34 | #

Mr. Hutchinson,

I made the mistake of addressing you since you are listed as a “writer” on this site and “illiterate”, “low-life”, and “fruitcake” are the responses.  Deep stuff.  Sorry, that I assumed you could make a cogent argument.

I don’t mind the name calling, just the fact that a WN forum would consider you an asset.

Posted by jlh on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:47 | #

Seems to me if we try to dodge the JQ in the interest of being neither offensive nor self-marginalizing, we run the risk of becoming just another polite conservative organ and thus represent no alternative to the stuff that’s burying us. While I cringe sometimes at nazi crap, I see denials that some people just aren’t compatible with the historical West to be playing into the hands of the forces that are trying to do us in. I think it’s a shame and very indicative of the problem that this blog, supposedly comprising fairly like-minded people who should be strategizing how to preserve what we all love, split down the middle over fears of legitimacy. Legitimacy in whose account? Not that I don’t think very good points have been made all the way around in this discussion, which I’ve been following over the past few days—with some sadness, actually. It doesn’t auger well for us that we are having this much trouble getting along with each other: although the infighting is entertaining at times, I fear our lack of unity gives more comfort to our enemies than any negatives we pick up from being associated with “nazi nutters” and holocaust revisionists.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:19 | #

WJG,

I know we are read by many WN’s but I am not a WN, and I own the blog.  We have the broadest possible range of what might be called right-wing opinion that I can attract here.  I would like it to be broader still, with less nationalist sentiment.

Nationalists, extreme or not, have turned out to be right about race.  In my country even people like John Tyndall and Martin Webster, when they were running around trying to start a virtual-Nazi movement in the 1960’s and 70’s, were right about race - though their solutions would have been generally disastrous.

The core support for a survivalist determination in the societies of Western Man will arise from right and left alike, from across the spectrum, and will require the leadership of determined men of moderate mein.  When good men stand up and declare for their kinfolk the future will have already changed in an irrevocable way.

Posted by WJG on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:38 | #

Guessedworker,

Thank you for the clarification.  Sorry to mischaracterize your site.

It does raise a question based on what you said.  Would you describe yourself as a nationalist who is bound by a creed of some sort instead of by blood?  If so, isn’t that what has gotten the West into the mess it is in - that we are propositional nations and anyone can be one of us with the right sort of conditioning or, even worse, documents?

This is not rhetorical.  I am really interested in what type of nationhood you are proposing.

Posted by Luke the Drifter on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:05 | #

Hutchinson: The advantage of MR is it allows me to try out limbs on a whole different side of the tree

I think you’re in an entirely different forest. 

Macdonald isn’t excessively scholarly, he’s illiterate.

Good grief.  Why are you so full of venom?  What is it about McDonald’s argument that reduces you to gradeschool-level argumentation and sputtering indignation?  It seems to me that your responses support the likelihood that he’s correct.

Posted by stari_momak on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:13 | #

Guessed Worker,

You are English, and English people are white. You desire the English people, a subset of white people, to retain the overwhelming majority in their ancestral homeland. To some people—my guess to the boys at GNXP—that would be enough to get you classified WN.

I think I know what you mean. If I may you mean you don’t consider all white folks members of your nation, as do some white nationalists. But I think that many would not make the distinction.

Here’s a somewhat below the belt hypothetical, kind of a Tebitt-test in reverse. Suppose that someday the starters on the English national football selection was made up of 9 blacks, 10 blacks, 11 blacks. Not so far-fetched, actually.

Would you root for them against a overwhelmingly white Germany? Would you just not follow the matches?

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:28 | #

I won’t answer for GW, but England have already had an ethnically Indian captain of the cricket team, who did an adequate job and handed over to a “white.”  Indeed, K.S. Ranjitsinhji played for England first in 1896. As to football (soccer) the upper middle classes don’t follow it; for all I know the England soccer team are bright green.

Posted by stari_momak on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 22:22 | #

Yes, and there was a Raja of something or other playing on the famous ‘bodyline’ controversy side (1933). Of course it was the white working class Larwood did the dirt work for the aristocrat Jardine.

Martin, I trust you have Cannadine’s Ornamentalism on your shelves. This ‘toffs against the world’ attitude has a long pedigree.
——————————————-
Cannadine cites Thackeray’s view of England in the 1850s as “that Gothic society with its ranks and hierarchies, its cumbrous ceremonies, its glittering antique paraphernalia.” Still, as Cannadine points out, much of this paraphernalia was recently invented, including the ceremonies of Empire: the splendid Durbars in Delhi; the hundreds of glittering orders of this and that; the bejeweled Nawabs, Nabobs, and Rajahs, and the viceroys in ermine and silk; the thousands of statues of kings and queens; the construction of Kingsways, Queensways, and monuments to lords, viscounts, and marquesses; the state visits and the royal birthdays—all these were meant to enhance the authority of British rule through a network of native proxies, and as a prophylactic against change abroad and at home.

The original architect of all this sorcery was none other than Benjamin Disraeli [!], the man who bewitched his queen with eloquent flattery and dazzled his peers with fables of Jews as the most ancient of aristocratic races[!! - just can’t get away from it], which would save old England from falling apart in a frightening new age of industry, urban disobedience, and foreign egalitarianism. It was Disraeli who made Queen Victoria the Empress of India, who oversaw the creation of all kinds of new honors and baubles, and who said that “it is only by the amplification of titles that you can often touch and satisfy the imagination of nations.” The fact that he, the grandson of an Italian Jew, managed to become Lord Beaconsfield would seem to prove Cannadine’s point about status trumping race. But it is not so simple. The fact that Disraeli felt the need to convince English squires that Jews were an aristocratic race, and as such by nature bound to the English, complicates our picture of Victorian racial geography. Some races were clearly thought to be superior to others.
——————————————

http://www.powells.com/review/2001_10_11.html

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 22:32 | #

Nawab of Pataudi. He objected to bodyline after getting a century in the First Test, to which the great Douglas Jardine (another hero) responded “Ah, I see His Highness is a conscientious objector” and dropped him for the remainder of the series.  REAL management. To be fair, though, Pataudi later captained India on the 1946 tour, as did his son in the 1960, before the odious Indira Gandhi stripped him of his title.

I’ve read most of Cannadine, including “Ornamentalism.” To most of his Islington center-left criticism of the upper class I respond “And this was wrong—why?” Not alas that I or any of my nearer ancestors qualify for anything more than impoverished upper-middle, but then that was true of Jardine too.

Empress of India and the Suez Canal are the only Disraeli moves I agree with. For the rest, he was a nasty Radical.

Posted by stari_momak on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:07 | #

<objected to bodyline after getting a century in the First Test, to which the great Douglas Jardine (another hero) responded “Ah, I see His Highness is a conscientious objector” and dropped him for the remainder of the series.</i>

I should have known better than to get into cricket with a limey ; )

Posted by Luke the Drifter on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:14 | #

Mr. Hutchinson:  I just perused the “about the author” section of your webpage, and am now much better able to understand the basis of your prejudices, both positive and negative.  There’s always a reason for everything.  http://greatconservatives.com/pages/5/index.htm

Do you consider yourself a neo-conservative?

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:25 | #

No. For one thing, as I’ve posted here, I’m at most equivocal on the Iraq adventure.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:29 | #

Oh, and if you’re suggesting I’m Jewish, WRONG. I know all my ancestors back to 1850; not one of them was Jewish, nor were any of the earlier generations domiciled in cities with a significant Jewish population, except for my great grandfather, the Leeds art dealer, whose daughter, 90 when I met her in 1971, was UNQUESTIONABLY anti-Semitic.

Posted by Luke the Drifter on Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:51 | #

I’m given to understand that my own great-grandfather (whom I met only as in infant) shared the perspective of your aunt, and to a rabid extent.  Ahh, we ignore the wisdom of our elders at our peril…

What could possibly account for so many presumably nice people harboring such hateful views?  Surely your ancestors (and my own, I hope) didn’t suffer from some sort of congenital defect or mass delusion, did they? 

Incidentally, I didn’t presuppose that you were Jewish, (though I feel confident in assuming that jews are vastly overrepresented in your field). 

I merely assumed that many of your colleagues are members of that tribe, and that, to succeed in the field, you must not exhibit beliefs that are unacceptable to your peers. 

I don’t question the sincerity of your perspective, but you post using your real name, and you cannot afford to be associated in any way with the disrepectful views you so vociferously denounce. 

Maybe you should post anonymously on occassion.  You might find it to be a liberating experience.

Posted by Luke the Drifter on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:43 | #

I’ll bet that you’ve been to plenty of seders and brisses, and that your social circle is in large part comprised of the chosen. 

And there’s probably more than a few Rebekkahs and Rachels who would ignore the familial pressure to date and marry in-group partners when introduced to a promising young gentile in a profitable field. 

I’ve sampled that pasture myself, though the experience didn’t cause me to forswear independent thought.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 01:05 | #

OK, one or two observations in reply.

First of all, nationalism in Europe - the pursuit of national independence and democratic government - is a political tradition with a long and dubious history and a grounding in a substantial philosophical canon.  There is a seriously worrying bifurcation to factor in post-WW1.  But even in the 19th century there are some odd bedfellows among those who, in some particular respect, might be described as nationalist.  An arch-Conservative Prussian aristocrat and monarchist like von Bismarck and a poor fisherman’s son like Garibaldi could conceivably both be admitted to the club.  Yet one could hardly see a Roman Bismarck, should such a creature be remotely possible, throwing in his lot with Young Italy and the Red Shirts in Sicily.

As a political label we bandy nationalism around far too freely without considering what is meant by it.  Mere capaciousness is not enough.  We should be precise because there is certain to be much that we do NOT mean.

So, for example, I view the interests of my (English) people as an ultimate interest for me.  But IMO that makes me nothing more than a normal human being, albeit one living in an age of inverted morality when such sentiments outrage a Marxised Establishment.  I am not necessarily a nationalist merely because that ultimate interest informs my political thinking.  It informed all non-Marxist politics in Britain up to 1945.

Actually, my politics are instinctively Conservative - I don’t like liberalism.  I don’t like OMOV democracy.  I don’t like equality.  I don’t worship either the individual or the state to the exclusion of one or the other.  I believe the foundation of personal freedom is social stability, not change as a herald of distant freedom.

Within the context of the Act of Union, I suppose, I am a mild English nationalist.  But that isn’t at all the same thing as a proper, paid-up romantic nationalist or, heaven forbid, one of the self-aggrandising 20th century varieties.

As for the reification of CP as the opposite of ties of blood, OK but, as I have already said, ties of blood do not a nationalist make.  My advice is to go beyond this narrow and constricting political label and incorporate into your wider political, cultural and social beliefs and preferences the all-important ultimate interest of EGI.  The rest will follow naturally and without any immersion in the troubled waters of nationalism.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 03:12 | #

The problem is, what is the ultimate EGI? What is the genetic distance that one in pursuit of his/her EGI finds acceptable?

Sailer:

Cavalli-Sforza’s team compiled extraordinary tables depicting the “genetic distances” separating 2,000 different racial groups from each other. For example, assume the genetic distance between the English and the Danes is equal to 1.0. Then, Cavalli-Sforza has found, the separation between the English and the Italians would be about 2.5 times as large as the English-Danish difference. On this scale, the Iranians would be 9 times more distant genetically from the English than the Danes, and the Japanese 59 times. Finally, the gap between the English and the Bantus (the main group of sub-Saharan blacks) is 109 times as large as the distance between the English and the Danish.

Is it 1 or 2.5 and if its 2.5 between English and Italian, then it is much less than 9 between Italian and Iranian?

Or is it simply that “The most important difference in the human gene pool is clearly that between Africans and non-Africans …” as Cavalli-Sforza assert.

Posted by WJG on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 03:49 | #

GW,

You are using a much more expansive definition of “nationalist” than I.  I use it simply as someone who desires independence, especially political, for their group, by some sort of identifying and objective criteria.  A nationalist is someone who supports the concept of nations, which must then either be primarily propositional or racial with some hybrids in-between.

A White Nationalist, in my mind, is someone who supports the legitimacy of White Nations just as every other racial group currently is accorded this same right.  Germany for the Germans, France for the French, Russia for the Russians, etc.  This isn’t intended to blend all White distinctiveness into one big grouping.  Just the opposite; it should support each variety’s desire to be as independent as is efficacious.  If Scots desire independence from Great Britain I would hope it is granted peacefully.  If others, say Welshman, believe they are too small to form their own autonomous nation hopefully confederations, like with England are mutually beneficial.  Multiracial empires like the USA and GB (and earlier like Yugoslavia and the SU) I believe are anathema to WN, since they are unnatural and held together only by force.

America is unique in being more of a hybridization of Whiteness than Europe, hence the rallying point for us here is Whiteness as opposed to Englishness or Polishness, etc.

Obviously, the political and economic systems would vary based on circumstances; maybe some would be “Leftist” and others “Rightist”.  Personally I desire an almost non-existent government except for protecting sovereignty and enforcing contracts but not much else.  It’s doubtful that will happen but it’s a hope.

I no longer consider myself a Conservative because of the current system there is to ‘conserve’.  In the US it is a putrid, socialistic, degenerate system.  Why would I want to conserve that?  I consider Traditionalist a better label - one who desires restoration of the best of our traditions; the rule of law, freedom, liberty, and real (not BS Marxist) justice.

Based on what you said I would call you a WN according to my understanding (possibly flawed) of the term.  That is unless by “Englishman” you mean anyone who took some oath or got some piece of paper saying they are English with no genetic connection.  The old, hackneyed meaning of Nationalist, used to justify all kinds of warmongering and imperialism, is not what I meant.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 04:59 | #

WJG, the term “Conservative” was coined in the Quarterly Review of January 1830 to mean conserving the political system Britain had then, i.e. the great Tory governments of Pitt and Liverpool. Given the current confusion over the term, it seems reasonable to give John Wilson Croker, who coined it, an effective intellectual copyright.  Needless to say, merely conserving socialism or multiculturalism is not meaningfully “Conservative.”

Your latest fairly gentle definition of WN, with a minimal but self-interested state, without hostility to e.g. Jews or even Frenchmen, falls fairly clearly within this definition.  Violent anti-Semitism, or “throw the bastards out by force” versions of WN would have fallen foul of the Sedition Act of 1794.

Posted by Kubilai on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 05:05 | #

That is unless by “Englishman” you mean anyone who took some oath or got some piece of paper saying they are English with no genetic connection.

WJG, I know GW didn’t meant that though he is a big boy and a bright one to boot and can answer for himself.  As for me, I like the cut of your jib my friend.  Welcome.

Posted by Luke the Drifter on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 05:58 | #

Violent anti-Semitism, or “throw the bastards out by force” versions of WN would have fallen foul of the Sedition Act of 1794.

You seem to have a pretty decent grasp of history.  Didn’t the British throw the bastards out?  When?  Why?  To what effect?  Please enlighten me. 

I suppose you regret that the sedition act of 1794 wasn’t in effect at that time?

Posted by Luke the Drifter on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 06:12 | #

This has already been posted, but it seems relevant to this discussion:

Loyalty to one’s ethnic group just as biologically valid as loyalty to family
A strong genetic contribution found to patriotism
LONDON, Ontario—A paper showing a strong genetic contribution to patriotism and in-group loyalty was published in the October issue of Nations and Nationalism, 11, 489-507, entitled “Ethnic nationalism, evolutionary psychology, and genetic similarity theory.”
Co-ethnics are as similar to each other as half-siblings when compared to all the genetic variation in the world. Two-random English people are the equivalent of 1/32 cousin by comparison with Germans; 3/8 cousin by comparison with people from the Near East; ½ cousin by comparison with people from India; half-siblings by comparison with people from China; and like full-sibs compared with people from Africa.

The pull of genetic similarity was also found to be fine-tuned, operating within marriages, within friendships, and among acquaintances—and even within families following bereavement.
MORE:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-10/cdri-lto103105.php

Posted by Luke the Drifter on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 06:48 | #

Charley Reese almost gets it right:

Multiculturalism is a poison pill prepared by people who hate America. The poison lies in the fact that every race and ethnic group in the world is to be honored except Caucasians of European descent. Any such showing of pride is to be labeled “Nazism” or “white supremacy.”

Both charges are bosh, of course. As part of the multicultural argument, it is often claimed that the United States has always been multicultural and multilingual. That is true only in a technical sense. Nearly all of the early immigrants were from Europe — mostly northern Europe, mostly Protestant Christians — and most all aspired to learn English if they didn’t know it.

Read what John Jay says in the second of the Federalist Papers:
MORE: http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20051107/index.php

Posted by WJG on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 07:11 | #

Martin,

Unfortunately the term “conservative” has been ruined by neo-conservatism, at least in the US.  The truest conservatives here now are labeled paleo-conservatives or paleo-libertarians.  The paleocons used to have a strong pro-white racial flavor.  Even that is being purged by corporatist forces as evidenced by activity at Human Events and the American Conservative recently.  I hear what you say about the word so maybe it still is valuable in GB.  Judging by your pathetic Conservative political party I wonder if the term is beyond redemption for you guys as well.

I didn’t mean to suggest that no deportations would be needed.  Given the lunacy of recent immigration policies some would have to be undertaken; whether it is back to their homelands or to some new land carved out of our lands is the muddier question.  The JQ, I’ll leave for another day.  We have beaten that one to death for now with much unfortunate acrimony.  If any deportations would violate any laws you have it seems to me those laws should be changed.  I don’t know how we can save our people unless we have land that is limited to just that people group.  There can be exceptions but they must be small as a percentage.

Kubilai,

I didn’t say that GW said that but he wasn’t very explicit so I wanted to be sure.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:21 | #

Pitt and Liverpool, if they’d had an excessive immigration problem, would probably have transported the excess to Botany Bay—given Australia’s current multicultural policies I suppose one could still do that!

I don’t think deporation is likely to be necessary, except of illegals and asylum seekers, though “chain” immigration of family members should clearly be sharply restricted. 

I don’t think it matters precisely where one draws the line; I would hope we can all agree that it’s not where it is today, and it’s well this side of the gas chambers. The desirable direction, and the need for a substantial and permanent shift in that direction, is however clear to all.

Posted by Kubilai on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:58 | #

Martin,

Is there some secret contest that MR is holding for the biggest “goader” award?  I do believe you are giving JJR a run for his money in that department.

Though I do have to say that repatriation will prove to be a MUST for Europe for ALL of the diversity enrichment subjects.  The rest of the west will not have this luxury, unfortunately.  I do have to thank the Muslims for their ever so present eagerness to continually push the envelope in this regard.  Without them, the White man slumber was never ending.  The speed with which people are awakening to this fact is quite palpable.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:02 | #

Martin,

If Pitt or Liverpool hadn’t taken immediate steps to return the country to 99.9% white there would have been revolution.  But actually, as you know, there is no correspondence between then and now.  After 1832 “the sinking game” progressively took political relevance away from the Tories, and that is how we have come to this pass.

I do not believe that the trend is theoretically impossible to reverse.  But to do so today’s Conservatives would have to ditch the politics of a rabbit in the liberal headlights, and re-found their key principles on the racial state - so self-evident to our ancestors it was never made explicit - and all other benefactors of social stability.

An apetitite for such developments must exist among the indigenous public first, of course.  For that to materialise much difficulty must yet be traversed by us all, until finally it is insuperable.  It will come to pass because liberalism, while it has made us forgetfull of ourselves and our true rights to this land, cannot “switch off” Nature - and is decaying as it becomes more repressive and unreasonable.  The Establishment will want us to sleep on through it all.  They are unlikely to get their wish.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:50 | #

I don’t think our ancestors ran a “racial state”—an essentially Third Reich concept that presupposes government controls these things.  After all, Huguenots were allowed in quite freely after 1685 and indeed formed a part of the elite by about 1720.

The important development is to return to uniculturalism, in which instiutions are run by and for the benefit of the native population, immigration is sharply restricted, and immigrants and their descendents can join the elite only to the extent that they have fully assimilated.  I had no problem with Nasser Hussain becoming captain of the England cricket team, for example, because he spoke with an entirely natural naff Essex accent and showed few if any non-English cultural traits.
I would however have a problem if a majority of the team became non-ethnically British, as is the case with US baseball teams, or if Hussain had been succeeded by another non-Brit.

(I’m among the bigger fans of Pedro Martinez and Manny Ramirez, but I wish they played for a Dominican Republic team, by all means in a top class multinational Western Hemisphere League, rather than for the Mets/Red Sox.)

These things are a matter of degree, as I said above; it really doesn’t matter if we don’t agree on the pricise answer, so long as we agree on the direction and substantiality of a necessary move. Personally I’d rather go for 80% of the ideal, in order to win over moderates, but reaching for only 20% of the ideal doesn’t do it.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 16:47 | #

Martin,

You are not allowing for genetic distance and biological nature.  We are Germano-Celtic.  Huguenots were very close to us in race and temper as well, of course, in culture (which is an expression of these things).  In assimilating 60,000 Protestant French we did not change ourselves from being Northern European.

You cannot, therefore, elide the assimability of such people into that of Africans and Sub-Continentals.  It is an entirely different question.

I have not the slightest doubt that prior to the 1970’s or 80’s the present situation - one of race replacement - would have occasioned uproar and brought down the government.  It is only by constant social engineering, legal sanction and the general slowness of the process that such a blessed outcome has been averted - so far.

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 22:10 | #

Just to concur with GW. 1000s of Poles stayed in Britain after WW2, only 60 years later they are pretty thoroughly assimilated. They did start off with a helpful environmental boost, being seen as very much on “our side”.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Wed, 09 Nov 2005 22:14 | #

As a child in Cheltenham in 1955-68, the public libary had an entire stack of Polish books. I mused for years on why the library would need so many books about polish, and why they would be separate—surely furniture care was included in the Dewey Decimal system

Posted by friedrich braun on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:11 | #

I know we are read by many WN’s but I am not a WN, and I own the blog.

I’m confused. Do you want a White England? Would you like to see immigration stopped and the repatriation of racially foreign elements? Would you like to see the English become masters of their own house and destiny?

If you say “yes” to the above, I don’t know why you refuse to identify as a White Nationalist; perhaps it’s because you regard it as an American phenomenon?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 05:52 | #

Friedrich I also don’t view myself as a “white nationalist,” but as a normal, apolitical person who prefers normalness for society rather than degenerateness and that is all I prefer.  Period.  Full stop.  End of story.  By making up a special name for plain ordinary normalness you implicitly accord to degenerateness the possibility of legitimacy.  Degenerateness has no legitimacy.  Only normalness has it.  What need have we to fool around with political names supposedly for designating this-or-that thing which doesn’t interest us, which we never wanted or needed to know about in the past, and which we’d prefer to remain ignorant of?  Degenerateness looms and suddenly we have to call ourselves some name we’d never heard of though normal people have known how to be normal for ten thousand years?  Let degenerateness give itself some special name, and let it go to the devil while it’s at it.  We’re normal, and that’s all we are.  No degenerate is going to come push me out of the place where normalness is and claim to occupy it instead of me or alongside me.  Sorry—ain’t gonna happen.  The degenerate hasn’t been born who is going to make me name myself some strange or unfamiliar new name.  I’m me, exactly what people like me have been for a billion years.  Let the degenerate name himself with some name.  I’m certainly not going to.
______

Moratorium-plus-Repatriation!

Posted by Alexei on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:45 | #

Regarding MacDonald’s review of Slezkine, I would recommend reading the full text that JB links to above (a pdf file). Whether MacD is “illiterate,” as Martin Hutchinson claims, I have no idea, beling illiterate in psychology and unable to understand MacD’s group evolutionary approach. So far I have spotted two major specific oddities in the review. First, the idea that Russian Germans were a Mercurian minority in pre-1917 Russia is an undue generalization (though it’s probably Slezkine’s fault more than MacD’s). Neither German settlers in the steppes around the Volga and the Black Sea nor officers with German names in the Russian army were Mercurian, the latter group in fact an incarnation of anti-Mercurianism. Second—and that’s far more important—the title itself is misleading and so is MacD’s failure to contrast the Soviet Jews’ predicament pre-WWII and post-WWII. “Lenin’s willing executioneers” would be more appropriate for the reviewer’s message. (This is not to say I agree with those of MacDonald’s conclusions that I’m able to understand—I find them enormously exaggerated.)

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:02 | #

Fred, hear hear! I am very uncomfortable with the WN term and don’t regard myself as such. Equally, when my co-ethnics and our culture are being attacked from outside, I favor repelling the attackers.

Posted by Luke the Drifter on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:21 | #

Fred: I appreciate your desire to avoid having your philosophy burdened by a name which is off-putting to the general populace, but I question whether your preferred approach (relying on an entirely subjective definition of “normalness”), is conducive to achieving the ends we want to attain. 

I doubt that there are very many mainstream Americans whose definition of normal behavior would accord with yours. 

Hearing you espouse the virtues of normality, they may well agree, but you’ll be speaking at cross-purposes.

I think that we need to explicitly acknowledge what is being sought.  Doing so will necessitate the expenditure of more effort to convert the uninitiated, but the effort will be worth it, because they’ll know why (and for what) they are fighting.  Those who we manage to convert will be foul-weather friends who won’t desert the cause the first time it becomes apparent that they misunderstood what you meant by normality.